Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32008087›Full record

ReviewCellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS2020

Endosymbiosis before eukaryotes: mitochondrial establishment in protoeukaryotes.

István Zachar, Gergely Boza

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Quantifying the fitness contribution of phagocytosis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Top-Down Coercive Mechanisms and the Major Transitions in Evolution.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Predicting horizontal gene transfers with perfect transfer networks.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Metabolic compatibility and the rarity of prokaryote endosymbioses.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.

István ZacharEvolutionary Systems Research Group, Institute of Evolution, Centre for Ecological Research, Klebelsberg Kunó str. 3., Tihany, 8237, Hungary. istvan.zachar80@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3505-0628
Gergely BozaEvolutionary Systems Research Group, Institute of Evolution, Centre for Ecological Research, Klebelsberg Kunó str. 3., Tihany, 8237, Hungary.
Eötvös Loránd University · HUInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis · AT

Funding

National Research, Development, and Innovation Office GINOP-2.3.2-15-2016-00057National Research, Development, and Innovation Office NKFI-K124438
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endosymbiosis and organellogenesis are virtually unknown among prokaryotes. The single presumed example is the endosymbiogenetic origin of mitochondria, which is hidden behind the event horizon of the last eukaryotic common ancestor. While eukaryotes are monophyletic, it is unlikely that during billions of years, there were no other prokaryote-prokaryote endosymbioses as symbiosis is extremely common among prokaryotes, e.g., in biofilms. Therefore, it is even more precarious to draw conclusions about potentially existing (or once existing) prokaryotic endosymbioses based on a single example. It is yet unknown if the bacterial endosymbiont was captured by a prokaryote or by a (proto-)eukaryote, and if the process of internalization was parasitic infection, slow engulfment, or phagocytosis. In this review, we accordingly explore multiple mechanisms and processes that could drive the evolution of unicellular microbial symbioses with a special attention to prokaryote-prokaryote interactions and to the mitochondrion, possibly the single prokaryotic endosymbiosis that turned out to be a major evolutionary transition. We investigate the ecology and evolutionary stability of inter-species microbial interactions based on dependence, physical proximity, cost-benefit budget, and the types of benefits, investments, and controls. We identify challenges that had to be conquered for the mitochondrial host to establish a stable eukaryotic lineage. Any assumption about the initial interaction of the mitochondrial ancestor and its contemporary host based solely on their modern relationship is rather perilous. As a result, we warn against assuming an initial mutually beneficial interaction based on modern mitochondria-host cooperation. This assumption is twice fallacious: (i) endosymbioses are known to evolve from exploitative interactions and (ii) cooperativity does not necessarily lead to stable mutualism. We point out that the lack of evidence so far on the evolution of endosymbiosis from mutual syntrophy supports the idea that mitochondria emerged from an exploitative (parasitic or phagotrophic) interaction rather than from syntrophy.

Indexed as

SymbiosisBiological EvolutionEukaryotic CellsMicrobial ConsortiaMitochondriaMitochondrial ADP, ATP TranslocasesPlastidsProkaryotic CellsMitochondrial ADP, ATP TranslocasesEndosymbiosisEukaryogenesisMitochondriaMutualismProkaryotes

Identifiers

PMID32008087
PMCPMC7452879
OpenAlexW3003575011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.